Criminal Law

Question 1

Felony murder

Answer 1

An unintended killing that is proximately caused by and during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony.

Question 2

Accomplice

Answer 2

An accomplice is one who (1) aids, encourages, or assists a principal in the commission of a crime (2) with the intent that the crime be committed.

Accomplices are liable for the intended crime as well as all crimes committed by the principal which are the natural and probable consequence of the intended crime.

To withdraw, accomplices must clearly repudiate aid and do all that is possible to countermand prior assistance. Withdrawal is not permitted after an inevitable chain of events leading to the commission of the crime has been set in motion.

Question 3

Intent to kill (malice)

Answer 3

To be found guilty under this theory, the defendant’s conduct must be the legal cause of victim’s death and the defendant must have intended to kill the victim.

Question 4

Robbery

Answer 4

larceny from the person or in the presence of the victim by force or intimidation

Question 5

Premeditation

Answer 5

A murder is premeditated if the defendant planned the killing or reflected on the idea of killing. The moment of reflection need only be brief.

But critically, reflection requires that the defendant have time to fully consider the killing after forming the intent to kill.

Question 6

Imperfect right of self-defense

Answer 6

Imperfect self-defense occurs when a person unjustifiably kills an attacker while claiming self-defense. This can occur when a defendant unreasonably but honestly believes that deadly force is required to prevent death or serious bodily injury

Downgrades from murder to voluntary manslaughter

Question 7

Depraved Heart

Answer 7

When Defendant possesses a reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk of harm to human life.

Question 8

Voluntary manslaughter

Answer 8

Killing of another with malice aforethought, but when mitigating circumstances are available. Four elements are required:

(1) There was sufficient provocation that would arouse a sudden or intense emotion or passion in the mind of a reasonable person
(2) D was provoked
(3) There was not enough time for a reasonable person to cool off
(4) Did not cool off

Question 9

Accessory after the fact

Answer 9

One who knowingly aids a felon to avoid apprehension after a felony is committed.

Question 10

Extortion

Answer 10

At common law, extortion was the unlawful taking of money by a government officer. Most jurisdictions have enacted statutes that more broadly define extortion as the taking of money or property from another by threat.

Question 11

Receiving stolen property

Answer 11

A statutory crime that requires (1) receiving control of stolen property, (2) knowing the property is stolen, (3) with the intent to permanently deprive the true owner.

Question 12

Involuntary manslaughter

Answer 12

Unintentional homicide committed with criminal negligence or while engaged in an unlawful act

Question 13

Self defense

Answer 13

A defendant is justified in using reasonable force against an aggressor if the defendant is in imminent risk of bodily harm by the aggressor. Self-defense only allows the use of proportional force; thus, deadly force in self-defense is only justifiable if the defendant reasonably believes that the aggressor may imminently subject defendant to deadly force or if there is a reasonable risk of severe bodily harm.

Question 14

Entrapment

Answer 14

Entrapment occurs when an officer or government official plans a crime and procures the commission of that crime via fraud, trickery, or persuasion. Elements: (1) the government official induced the crime, and (2) the Defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime

Question 15

Voluntary manslaughter

Answer 15

Killing of another with malice aforethought, but it is a lesser offense available when the following mitigating circumstances exist:

(1) sufficient provocation - an event occurred that would produce a sudden and intense emotion or anger in a reasonable person
(2) D must have actually been provoked
(3) There must not have been sufficient time to cool off
(4) D did not actually cool off

Imperfect self defense

Question 16

Felony murder framework

Answer 16

Define FMR - FMR is an unintended killing that is proximately caused by and during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony. Inherently dangerous felonies include burglary, arson, rape, robbery, and kidnapping

Discuss if underlying felony exists

Discuss if there was proximate cause

Limitations - under the proximate cause theory, if a 3rd party is killed by a police officer or by a victim while the victim is resisting, then the defendant is liable (but this in the minority rule)

Under the agency theory (majority rule), a defendant is not liable for the death of a 3rd party or co-felon if by a resisting victim or a police officer

Question 17

Insanity defenses

Answer 17

M’Naghten rule - the D is unable to understand either (1) the nature and quality OR (2) the wrongfulness of his act by virtue of a mental defect

Irresistible impulse - because of a mental defect, the D is unable to conform his conduct to the law

Durham rule - the D’s mental defect is a but-for cause of his commission of the crime (D would not have committed the crime but for his disease or defect)

MPC - D, as a result of a mental defect, D lacked substantial capacity to understand the wrongfulness of the act OR conform his conduct to the law

Question 18

Duress

Answer 18

Not an intentional murder, but a D charged with FMR may assert duress as a defense to the underlying felony and avoid conviction for felony murder

Question 19

Kidnapping

Answer 19

Unlawful confinement of a person + against that person’s will + movement or concealment of that person

Question 20

Embezzlement

Answer 20

The fraudulent conversion of another’s property by a person in lawful possession of that property

Question 21

Withdrawal from conspiracy

Answer 21

Under common law (minority rule), no withdrawal because agreement is the crime

Withdrawal before overt act
Under majority rule, overt act is required for completion of the crime. So withdrawal can occur before overt act and after agreement by (1) telling other co-conspirators of intent to withdraw OR (2) by informing police

Withdrawal after overt act
Under majority rule, withdrawal is not possible after overt act. But D may limit liability for substantive crimes that are the subject of the conspiracy by withdrawing from the conspiracy after it is formed.

After an effective withdrawal, D is not liable as a co-conspirator for crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, but D may still be liable as an accomplice for crimes that are committed by D’s former co-conspirators subsequent to D’s withdrawal for which D gave aid.

Question 22

Malum in se vs Malum prohibitum

Answer 22

A malum in se misdemeanor - one that is inherently wrong, immoral, or evil - may be grounds for finding involuntary manslaughter if the misdemeanor actually and proximately caused the death of another (also applies to felonies that are not 1st or 2nd degree)

A malum prohibitum misdemeanor is one that is not inherently wrong or immoral - such misdemeanors generally do not support involuntary manslaughter even if they unintentionally cause the death of another, unless they are willful

Question 23

Criminal battery

Answer 23

Unlawful application of force onto the person of another

Question 24

Kidnapping

Answer 24

The unlawful confinement of another, against that person’s will, coupled with movement or concealment

Question 25

conspiracy

Answer 25

an agreement between 2 or more persons to accomplish an unlawful purpose with the specific intent that the purpose be accomplished + overt act

liable for conspiracy + all substantive crimes of co-conspirators taken in furtherance of conspiracy

Question 26

Conspiracy vs Accomplice liability

Answer 26

Conspiracy liability - liable for conspiracy and all substantive crimes of co-conspirators taken in furtherance of conspiracy

Withdrawal -
to escape liability for conspiracy itself: impossible under common law after agreement, may be possible in majority of jurisdictions if before overt act (must notify co-conspirators of intent to withdraw or alternatively notify police)

a defendant may limit his liability as a co-conspirator for the substantive crimes that are the subject of the conspiracy by withdrawing from the conspiracy at any time after it is formed. For this purpose, he may withdraw by giving notice to his co-conspirators or timely advising legal authorities of the existence of the conspiracy even though such an action does not thwart the conspiracy.